tv The Rachel Maddow Show MSNBC October 1, 2012 9:00pm-10:00pm PDT
the truth is he's an obstructionist and in it for himself. >> well, do you think the people in your district, quickly, are holding the obstructionist -- do they view him as the obstructionist and the person who is really held up progress in washington? are the people in the district willing to label that on cantor? >> well, all i can say is the reaction i get from people is i meet people who aren't democrats is the same. they want a change. 12 years of nonperformance. they want it to end and and i'm the alternative. i know my heart is in the right place. >> okay. wayne powell, thank you for joining us. that's "the ed show." "the rachel maddow show" starts right now. good evening, ed. thank you for saying with us this hour. we have barney frank later on this hour responding to the elizabeth warren/scot brown debate that happened in boston. that was a barn burner.
but before that, i have to tell you we had a remarkable late in the game development in the presidential race today. it is october 1st. but what happened today is roughly the opposite of an october surprise, i guess? today the republican party announced that in five of the nine or so swing states in the presidential race this year, in the five states that you see marked with an x on this map, the republican party is stopping its voter registration efforts. the republican party has suddenly and totally as of october 1st given up on trying to register new voters in nevada, colorado, virginia, north carolina, and florida. each of those states is very much in play this year. and the republican party has announced that in these five key swing states, they are going to stop registering new voters. here are the voter registration deadlines for those states. typically what this would mean
is between now and the last minute of the last hour on the last date that you see on the screen for each of those states, the parties would be in a full-out sprint to maximize the number of voters they are registering. they would be expecting with each day, they would be registering more and more voters because obviously as you get closer and closer to the election, more people who haven't been paying attention previously are starting to pay attention. the closer you get to election day, the closer you get to the end, the more enthusiasm there tends to be. the people who weren't interested, start to get interested. you need to be gunning until the finish line in terms of registering voters. that's how it works. but again, the republican party announced today they will no longer be trying to register voters. this is a remarkable development. the reason the republicans have stopped registering voters is the company hired to do the work of voter registration by the
republican party is a company called strategic ally consulting. they chose this company. they were going to pay them to do all the work for them in the five swing states. they the rnc picked that company and selected them to use them for this work. the executive director of the north carolina republican party says his state chapter had hired the company on the recommendation of the rnc. he said, quote, these are good people running the rnc and i have a lot of confidence in them. in nevada, they paid them directly. in the four other state, they gave the states money for the purpose of hiring the company so the states wouldn't have to worry about voter registration. the national party told the states to hire the company, gave the states the money to do it. so this company, the good people of the republican headquarters, they had it under control. now the republican party has fired that company. and there is no republican plan
b for registering voters in these five swing states because that one company was the only company. the republican party's only plan for voter registration. that's all the more remarkable. the republican party knew when they decided to put all their eggs in this basket this was a troubled basket to be putting its eggs in. the company exists as strategic allied consulting. because the republican party told the lead consultant who runs the company he would need to come up with a new corporate name because under his old corporate names, under the old company names he was doing this work, he had gotten too much bad press over the way he handled voter registrations. quote, in order to be able to do the jobs that the state parties were hiring us to do, the rnc asked us to do it with a different company's name so as not to be a distraction from the false information put out in the internet. the reason there's stuff in the internet about this company that needed to be covered up by a
change in name is because of claims from a previous election where the republican party had hired them. in 2004 the same company was accused of destroying hundreds if not thousands of voter registration forms where the new voter signed up as a democrat. the company was accused of doing the same thing in oregon. either ignoring voters who said they wanted to sign up as democrats or completing their forms and trashing them later. in minnesota the company was said to have fired those who came back with forms for new democratic voters and give a bonus to those who got a registration from undecided voters. neither the firm nor consultant ever faced criminal charges
after those elections, but this year when the republican party realized it wanted to hire them again, the republican party had the good sense to ask the guy to change the name of the company before he took millions of republican dollars had year for voter registration. now this same guy, former executive director of the arizona republican party whose group was investigated in 2004, now his group operating under a different name as the sole vender for voter registration forms, his group is expected of more shenanigans. they turned in more than 100 suspect forms in palm beach county. they were missing obvious information or names were spelled one way and signed another. the company blamed the problems on a single employee. a single bad apple in that one county. but then florida election officials found forms that looked fraudulent in a dozen florida counties. worse the republican parties trusted firm for voter registration appears to have misled voters in colorado. you might have seen this video kicking around on the internet. this young woman signing up voters at a grocery store saying
she's working for the local county clerk and that she can only sign up republicans. she does not appear to be working for the clerk. she does appear to sign up just republicans. in nevada the firm is accused of tearing up the form of someone who wanted to register as a democrat. >> in a statement given to the secretary of state's office, the witness demanded to fill out another form and when she marked democrat he told her to rip it up and fill out another form and leave party affiliation blank. we got this picture. >> one employee of this firm in florida says that he was told to ask people who they supported. if the answer was mitt romney, he was supposed to sign them up. if not, well, then not. in virginia after the republican firm campusers were fishing for voters, one official felt compelled to remind them that you can't throw out forms because you do not like the party registration of the voter.
the reason it's illegal in lots of states to pay canvassers per registration is it creates an incentive to make up fake people that register to vote so they can get paid for those registrations. it's a form of fraud and it's a bad thing, but it doesn't necessarily affect any election outcomes because those are fake people. and those fake people don't exist in the real world so they are not going to show up and vote. the actual thing is if you do get real people to fill out real forms and they therefore, believe they are registered and then because you don't like their party affiliation, you tear it up and then that real person thinks they have registered, show up on election day only to find out they are not on the rolls and not allowed to vote. after the reports in the past few days, the republicans firm is now under investigation in florida and reportedly in nevada and in north carolina.
and the collapse of the republicans voter registration scheme has resulted in the republican party ceasing all voter registration efforts in five of the swingiest swing states in the country with another week and a half left to register voters. just a remarkable development. joining us is columnist of "the washington post," author of "our divided political heart." e.j., it's great to have you here. they entrusted it to a group with a bad record and have gotten themselves in hot water. have you seen anything like this before? >> i can't remember anything like this before. i had this thought that the republicans haven't been able to find very much voter fraud to justify all the laws so they decided to create some themselves.
that's one of the sort of terrible down sides of this. if they use this as an excuse to say, we need these tough voter i.d. laws because you made the essential point. there were two broad points of view on this. one is we're so worried about fraud we're going to make it really hard for a lot of people to vote or that the whole process is supposed to make it easy for people to cast ballots. and that the worst thing they did was to destroy people's voter registration forms. but i don't remember anything like this except acorn. and i think this is where we're going to have to ask our conservative friends. they went nuts over acorn, the progressive group having bad registrations. acorn itself, by the way, had called the attention of voter registrars to the fraud themselves. they disciplined themselves.
and yet this was a big scandal and acorn lost a lot of money and had to go out of business. why isn't this the same thing for conservatives given what they did? >> the thing that's amazing to me is acorn was a legitimate group. it was not a fake grass roots group. they are the ones that realized they had some people screwing up voter registrations. they raised their hands and said these were wrong and disciplined those people and that was it. the democratic party was not counting on acorn to be its sole voter registration vender in the five most important swing states in the country and the republican party counting on this group when they knew it had enough problems that it asked them to change the name to avoid the resemblance. seems like a republican problem than a jerky consulting company problem. >> you wonder what priority were they giving voter registration period if they were giving it
all to this one company. and you also wonder what is it in the the connections among consultants and the party that made all this money go there? the people who should be upset are rank and file republicans. the democrats are going great guns. obama registered 250,000 new voters in north carolina. everybody said north carolina won't really be competitive this time. i thought that along with indiana, it was probably those two states he was most likely to lose yet he's holding up in the polls. if he carries it, it's probably going to be that registration edge from the massive registration he's doing and now the republicans can't do. >> watching some of the -- one of the things i did was watch a lot of local news coverage of how this is being covered. hearing from people who live in colorado don't believe the polls. it's a lot closer than it seems. colorado is going to be really hard fought.
maybe mitt romney had a hard time in the primaries in 2012. he did great in 2008. people will remember him. half of what the colorado party has spent on this election it's spent on that voter registration contract with this bogus company that's now been fired and can do no work in the last home stretch of the campaign. there's a basic competence issue in terms of what it means to run a party here. i feel like the rank and file voters must be duped but they must be enraged. >> you have seen some real money management issues. remember all the stories that mitt romney was going to outspend barack obama by vast sums of money. and then we learned that the campaign didn't have quite as much money as we thought they had. and so maybe it's about competence. >> e.j., let me ask you one more question. you saw ed shultz broadcasting from denver tonight.
i'm jealous he's having a post-show party in a bar with people. the romney campaign is telegraphing they need to have a clean win, that they need to absolutely turn the momentum around. they are not trying to lower expectations because they need to be reassuring supporters. is that wise to set up the debate that way? >> no. if i were there, i would say we need a three-debate strategy and we're going to begin to lay the groundwork and you'll see us move rather than lay it on the line here. in order to do that, i think they they not only need romney to have a great debate, but president obama needs to make a mistake. you can be sure he's going to be guarding himself against. the biggest danger for obama is that he has the most to lose here because the election seems
to be going his way. and therefore, if he's too cautious he will look too laid back and might let romney, who can be ferocious in these things, as we saw in the newt gingrich debate. but there's so much damage to undo about himself before he gets to obama. the 47% comment and the whole image of somebody who doesn't care about the middle class and only the rich. he has to use the debate to repair that and only then can he pivot to obama, which is why he needs a long strategy. >> the last point is right. it's a difficult match between the venue, the medium in that debate and what he needs to accomplish, which is about seeming like a guy who cares about the middle class. there's ways to do that in ads and staging and all sorts of other things. hard when you're standing next to the president. but that's the distance he needs to go. e.j. dionne, great to have you
here. >> nice to see you. it's political debate season to be sure. massachusetts senator scott brown and elizabeth warren just completed their second televised debate. you might recall the first one. let's see if senator brown's, but she doesn't look native american card is the only one in his deck. that's it next. machine look, if you have copd like me, you know it can be hard to breathe, and how that feels. copd includes chronic bronchitis and emphysema. spiriva helps control my copd symptoms by keeping my airways open for 24 hours. plus, it reduces copd flare-ups. spiriva is the only once-daily inhaled copd maintenance treatment that does both. spiriva handihaler tiotropium bromide inhalation powder does not replace fast-acting inhalers for sudden symptoms. tell your doctor if you have kidney problems, glaucoma, trouble urinating, or an enlarged prostate. these may worsen with spiriva. discuss all medicines you take, even eye drops.
stop taking spiriva and seek immediate medical help if your breathing suddenly worsens, your throat or tongue swells, you get hives, vision changes or eye pain, or problems passing urine. other side effects include dry mouth and constipation. nothing can reverse copd. spiriva helps me breathe better. (blowing sound) ask your doctor about spiriva.
mike rowe here at a ford tell me fiona, who's having a big tire event? your ford dealer. who has 11 major brands to choose from? your ford dealer. who's offering a rebate? your ford dealer. who has the low price tire guarantee... affording peace of mind to anyone who might be in the market for a new set of tires? your ford dealer. i'm beginning to sense a pattern. buy four select tires, get a $60 rebate. use the ford service credit credit card, get $60 more. that's up to $120. where did you get that sweater vest? your ford dealer. the columbus dispatch released their latest poll yesterday and found in the state
of ohio it's president obama leading mitt romney right now by nine points. the other big home state newspaper poll was from the des moines register. according to that poll, the des moines register poll in iowa, president obama is leading by four points. there are a ton of national tracking polls out today. and spoiler alert, they all show president obama ahead by a few points. in terms of the senate races, that same columbus poll out of ohio that shows president obama ahead it shows sherrod brown leading by ten points. heading into the elizabeth warren and scot brown debate in massachusetts, we'll be talking about that in a moment, there's a new poll out today in massachusetts that has elizabeth warren over scott brown by two. in pennsylvania, a newspaper
poll released over the weekend put the democrat in that race bob casey ahead of his republican challenger by eight points. as mitt romney's, shall we say, second place standing starts to look like more and more of a permanent residence as it seems like a long shot for winning the presidency, the down ticket effect of that is starting to become a bigger part of the conversation. you saw a manifestation of that last week on this show when nancy pelosi came on this show and said, essentially, democrats can win back the house. nancy pelosi said not only is she confident that democrats can get the 25 seats they need to take back control of the house, which is a huge number, she says she, quote, liked to have 35 seats, which would be a lot. and while it is news worthy that the democrats think they can take back the house, it should be said that a number of other observers looking at the same prospect are calling the idea
that the democrats could take back the house pretty much impossible. politico publishing a piece on it. one of the consequences of republicans winning so many seats in the state legislatures in the big election of 2010 is that because that was a census year, that was also a redistricting year. and all of those bright red republican state legislatures that were elected in that year, they were able to redistrict congressional districts in their states to protect the republicans who won congressional seats in the midterms. and so despite the democrats enthusiasm, most observers say it's going to be impossible for democrats to win back the house. most outside observers say that. not everyone though. mitch mcconnell, the top republican in the senate, he gave an interview over the weekend to his hometown
newspaper and he said to his newspaper something that may have been a little too revealing. he's discussing what he tells donors. our view is obama has done a poor job. everything he did that was wrong was when he had overwhelming democratic support. it's appropriate to ask now, how did that work out? and then he added this. he said, quote, i'm pretty confident the american people are not going to go back to 2009 and 2010 and let the other side have total control of the government. total control of the government? think about that for a second. mitch mcconnell is talking about democrats controlling the senate and the white house and democrats controlling the house. i mean, few people other than nancy pelosi and other house democrats are talking about the democrats conceivably taking control of the house. but mitch mcconnell seems to think that's a possibility. as the republican leader in the
senate, mitch mcconnell is most concerned with senate seats and that's what he's backstopping here when pitching to donors. but the pitch he's making to republican donors is amazing. he's pitching that republicans need to work hard and collect your hard-earned money to hold on to seats in the senate because the republicans will lose the house and incidentally saying that mitt romney will lose the race for the white house. it's like it goes without saying for these guys now. this is the guy more in charge of the republican senate message than anybody else in the country. and his pitch is mitt romney is going to lose. you need us so democrats don't control everything. everybody has been waiting to find out if mitt romney looks like such a losing prospect that republicans will be cut lose to essentially campaign on their own to campaign against them. but campaigning on the assumption that it mitt romney is going to lose? that's something new. and it's even weirder when voiced by scott brown tonight. that's coming up.
it seems to me first of all from what i understand from doctors, that's really rare. if it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. >> that's the senate candidate from missouri this year, congressman todd akin. one of the things lost as soon as he said what he said about legitimate rape is his
democratic opponent claire mccaskill had hand selected todd akin to be her opponent before he ever made the comments about rape. claire mccaskill used campaign money to run ads that were for todd akin advertising him to republican primary voters as the true conservative in the race. that's because claire mccaskill knew before he made his rape comments that he's the kind of guy who would make comments like that. he's proved her right. remember when rand paul came out against the civil rights act and then had to take it back when running for senate? remember how bad that was for him? did you hear what todd akin just said? stay with us. that's coming up. machine [ humming ]
only kidding, only kidding. only kidding, only kidding. ariana definitely is not available but ayla is. >> stop. >> this is ariana and this is ayla. i can see i'm going to get in trouble when i get home. >> that was scott brown the night he won the special election to fill the massachusetts senate seat two and a half years ago. right now in trying to get reelected, he faces a deficit among women voters of about 12 points. interestingly though, the most
politically damaging thing about that awkward introduction to the national political universe might not have been what mr. brown said about his daughters while they tried to make him stop, but what happened right before that. >> scott brown's victory is a shot heard around the world. here he is, the united states senator from massachusetts, scott brown. >> the man who introduced scott brown at his victory party was his dear friend and political ally mitt romney. these days if you went by massachusetts politics, if you only had massachusetts media fed into your home, you'd have no idea that the same guy was running for president. today was the second debate between scott brown and elizabeth warren. two things you'll remember in the first debate. the first the vehemence he
attacked elizabeth warren on the basis of race in the first debate saying he could tell by looking at the law professor that she wasn't really native american. that was followed up by two scott brown tv ads attacking elizabeth warren on the basis of race. it was also followed by a bunch of scott brown staffers mocking native americans with fake war whoops and tomahawk chops. tonight he addressed the same controversy and kept arguing that race is relevant and a decision the voters have to make. he still did not apologize for staffers making fun of native americans even though the cherokee tribe chief asked him to. you know, other than just by looking at her. the other surprising thing from the first debate was that the name mitt romney was never mentioned in that first debate. mitt romney who was the governor of massachusetts who introduced scott brown, who once ran for
senate himself, whose campaign senior adviser is also scott brown's campaign senior adviser, and the guy who is the republican nominee for president, he was never mentioned in the first debate. but tonight that oversight was remedied. >> this is a quote from you. when it it comes to dealing with economic issue, there's no one i would trust more than mitt romney. would you be an ally? >> you pointed out about the dysfunctionality of washington. when i went down there, i thought it was dysfunctional and when i got there, it's worse. you see it every day. that's why i'm taking great pride and speaking to the independent voters of massachusetts. i vote about 50% with my party and 50% with the democratic party. that's different than what professor warren would do. i don't work for anybody. i don't work for president obama or mitt romney or harry reid.
>> it is striking that you support governor romney for president, i assume? >> as i said, when it comes to dealing with economic issues, absolutely. but we're two different people. >> but you'd be a reliable ally when it comes to the economic plans? >> on his economic plan? you said there was no one i'd trust more than romney. >> a lot of people don't read the bills down there. >> his reluctance to pledge allegiance may have something to do with this. the two polls showing he who should not be named losing to president obama in massachusetts by 27 points and 28 points in the two latest polls. barney frank was at the debate. he joins us next. machine
i made mistakes. i will make more mistake. before i got elected, i said my daughters are available on national tv. that was a pretty good mistake. and i'm still paying for that one. but the difference between when i make a mistake, i correct it. i immediately corrected it. >> who is your model supreme court justice? >> let me see here. that's a great question. i think justice scalia is a good judge. justice kennedy is obviously very good. and justice roberts, they are very qualified people there.
>> they don't exactly -- >> that's the beauty of being independent. >> if you had to pick one. >> i don't need to pick one. we have plenty of justices up there and i'm proud of the the ones we have. >> i don't support the dream act. we can't take a class of citizens here illegally and move ahead of the 4 million people trying to do it legally. >> senator brown is right. this is a big difference between the two of us. he voted against the dream act. i would strongly support the dream act. i believe in it. >> you're going to comment on my record, i would at least have
you refer to -- excuse me. i'm not a student in your classroom. please let me respond. okay. >> joining us now for the interview tonight live from outside the massachusetts senate debate is congressman barney frank of massachusetts. thank you for being here. i appreciate your time tonight. >> you're welcome. >> what do you think were the political differences between debate one and debate two? we spoke after the first debate as well. >> well, i was disappointed in david gregory's choice of topics. to spend many minutes on this nonissue of cherokee ancestry and about a minute and a half on afghanistan is about as bad a set of priorities as i have seen. i understand the format, but beyond that though, there were two extraordinary moments.
one was when senator brown, and i would hope this would get a lot of focus, when he claimed he hasn't made up his mind who he is going to support for majority leader. i think everyone including him knows he's going to vote mitch mcconnell, but you have a confirmation of the fact that the massachusetts voters are fairly indicated and they are not prepared to vote for president obama and then put into the majority leadership of the senate a man who says his number one agenda is to frustrate president obama. you also have scott brown literally raising money with an e-mail that says send me money so i can help check the obama agenda. so you have his recognition that what he plans to do is -- you talk about credibility for him to claim he hasn't made up his mind for majority leader is literally noncredible.
the other issue is when he was asked who were his best supreme court justices, his first mention was scalia. i think as you sat there, you could see him say to himself, maybe that wasn't the best thing to say. he claims to be supportive of the women's right to choose. he believes in equality for lgbt people. and the first word out of his mouth when asked about supreme court justices is a fervent opponent of all those causes. scott brown when asked on issues, i have an open mind on this. well, i think he's kind of crossing the line from independent into incoherence and it's because he understands that if he were to say what he really plans to vote, it would be unattractive to the voters. >> i was home in massachusetts this weekend and i was struck by
seeing a lot of scott brown signs and a lot of elizabeth warren signs and a lot of obama/biden signs and not a single romney sign evident anywhere i went in western and central massachusetts all weekend long. i wonder if scott brown could do anything to make himself seem like a nonrepublican nominee at this point that you think would be credible. is there a way to separate himself? >> no. he's trying very hard, but it's not credible. he's sending out e-mails. we have seen the documents where he says, give me money so i can block the obama agenda. elect me so i can be a part of the check on president obama. we also have his voting record. it was noted that of the first 32 votes on breaking filibusters when scott brown was in the senate, he voted with his republican colleagues 30 of the 32 times.
he will try hard to dissemble. the notion he hasn't made up his mind for majority leader is one of the least honest things i have heard said. and he's going to have the -- this is going to be his serious bump. he's going to vote to make the most right wingers -- in power, a man who would be destructive in any effort. i don't see any way for him to credibly deny he is what he is. there was a republican member of the state legislature. he's a lifelong politician. not that there's anything wrong with that. he was never seen as a moderate or an independent.
he was a conventional republican. he understands that to survive in massachusetts, he has to give the appearance of independents, but as i said, it comes across as incoherence. >> barney frank of massachusetts, thank you so much for joining us tonight. it's great to see you. there's a couple more debates. i hope i can monopolize you after those as well. todd akin, the next time you want to say anything about women, deep breath first. his latest disaster just ahead. machine ♪ forz(power!) andiamo! andiamo! (let's go! let's go!) avanti! avanti! (keep going! keep going!) hahaha...hahahaha! you know ronny, folks who save hundreds of dollars by switching to geico sure are happy.
overruled what the state wanted to do in this case. the federal government saying you cannot operate your state university as a segregated whites only institution. that same principle, that same constitutional protection applies not just to public institutions but to private institutions as well, some of them, right? under the 1964 civil rights act. you cannot operate a private business that serves the public that also excludes people based on their race. you can't operate your business, for example, like this. even if it is your private business. and even if your local law enforcement authorities are okay with it. and even request your state's government says stuff like segregation now. you're part of the united states of america and far of our constitution you cannot operate racially discriminatory businesses. nobody thinks you can do this anymore, right? lives were lost and a lot of blood was shed to enforce that principle, but it is settled now, right? until the last couple of years. when kentucky republican rand paul won a seat in the united
states senate in 2010. it was after a campaign in which he said the 1964 civil rights act made him uncomfortable. he wasn't sure that anybody should be able to tell a private business that, for example, you have to serve black people. >> would you have voted for the civil rights act of 1964? >> i like the civil rights act in the sense that it ended discrimination in all public domains and i'm all in favor of that. but -- you had to ask me the but. but i don't like the idea of telling private business owners. i abhor racism. i think it's a bad idea to exclude anybody from your restaurant at the time i believe there should be no discrimination in anything that gets into private funding but maybe voting against the civil
rights act which wasn't just good governmental discrimination, but public accommodations, people who provided services that were open to the public had to do so in a nondiscriminatory fashion. let me ask you a specific. >> there's ten different titles, you know, to the civil rights act. and nine out of ten deal with public institutions and i'm absolutely in favor of. one deals with private institutions, and had i been around, i would have tried to modify that. >> then candidate rand paul and i went around and around on that issue back when he was running. and he would not say that businesses discriminating on the basis of race should be illegal. that was early on in his race. but within a day of that interview on this show, he recanted what he said before
releasing a statement that he does support the civil rights act. so that happened. that was in 2010. he started to run a senate campaign that was against the civil rights act. that was against banning segregation and racial discrimination from businesses. he got pressed on that issue until it nearly broke him. that was in 2010. now in 2012, the republicans are running another senate candidate who is making a similar case. in this case he's making an argument that businesses in this country should be able to discriminate in how they pay their employees. in other words if a private business wants to pay its asian workers or its black workers half of what it pays its white workers, that's what should be allowed. freedom. they should be allowed to pay women less than men. it's not illegal discrimination, it's a private business's private decision. >> yes, sir? >> you voted against the lilly ledbetter fair pay act. why do you think it's okay for a woman to be paid less for doing
the same work as a man? >> first of all the prove ace of your question that i'm making the distinction. i believe in free enterprise. i don't believe the government should be telling people what you pay and what you don't pay. i think it's about freedom. if somebody wants to hire somebody and they agree on a salary, that's fine. however it wants to work. so the government sticking its nose into all kinds of things got us into huge trouble. >> claire mccaskill has just released that of her opponent, todd akin. who's the government to come in and tell people they have to pay people the same money for the same work. if businesses want to discriminate on race or gender, if a business wants to pay a women less than a man, that's the business's decision. if they want to pay black people
less than white people, that must be up to them, too. right? todd akin as a man has become the personification of the bounds of political acceptability. we thought he had established by saying some rapes are legitimate and some are illegitimate put him outside the bounds. and still be a republican candidate for u.s. senate and that was true for about a month when the republicans turned their backs on him. but now republicans have decided they're actually okay with him on that. he picked up the endorsements of former missouri governor kit bond and roy blunt this week. these four senators are reportedly acting as honorary hosts. and after saying that he should drop out of a race, republican party chairman says the party is dedicated to doing everything it
can to promote the entire ticket of republicans running in missouri, including todd akin. as chairman of the party i have an obligation to make sure we win as many seats in the senate as possible. todd akin has already put his fellow republicans in a tough position by not jumping out of the race when he became the legitimate rape guy. but now they've decided that being the legitimate rape guy does not disqualify you from getting the support of the republican party, now he has a whole laundry list of issues. since he floated his fake science theory about pregnancy and rape, he has also described his opponent, unladylike. they released video of him for
spending time in jail and he is defending his vote against fair pay for women, not by saying that women don't suffer in terms of pay discrimination, but by saying instead that he just doesn't believe that discrimination is wrong. he doesn't believe that businesses should have to follow any laws about who they discriminate against. the government shouldn't tell you what you pay and what you don't pay. discrimination is just freedom for business owners who are getting a really good deal on their lady workers. republicans have to weigh how badly they want a republican candidate for missouri. they have to weigh that against how much it's going to cost them to be associated with the legitimate rape, your unladylike jailed abortion protesters i'm against civil rights guy in missouri. now he says that businesses should be able to discriminate in what they pay their workers,